Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
They took more time than expected time to accept the revised manuscript.
Motivation:
After we asked the Editor for any update regarding the paper the 1st round of review came quickly. Reports from 1 reviewer in particular were overly destructive and led to outright rejection.
Motivation:
The most painful, inefficient and frustrating dealing with a journal I have had in a 25 year scientific career. After a ridiculous battle with their initial quality check which meant that it took 2 weeks after submission to get anyone to even look at it, it took an outrageous 19 weeks for primary review. After this infuriating wait, the feeble comments that came back could have been written by an undergraduate that had scanned the paper in 5 minutes.
We turned the revised version around in a week, had yet another battle with their content management system and quality check, and it still took a further 14 days to accept the minute changes that had been requested. I had submitted 2 papers nearly simultaneously to Scientific Reports, and the second was treated equally inefficiently. The administrative/editorial staff seemed perpetually overwhelmed, responses to emailed inquiries were slow or absent. We were desperate to get our work published in time to be able to cite it in our grant applications before their respective deadlines and were unable to, which weakened our applications significantly.
Extremely frustrating. We will not submit to Scientific Reports again.
We turned the revised version around in a week, had yet another battle with their content management system and quality check, and it still took a further 14 days to accept the minute changes that had been requested. I had submitted 2 papers nearly simultaneously to Scientific Reports, and the second was treated equally inefficiently. The administrative/editorial staff seemed perpetually overwhelmed, responses to emailed inquiries were slow or absent. We were desperate to get our work published in time to be able to cite it in our grant applications before their respective deadlines and were unable to, which weakened our applications significantly.
Extremely frustrating. We will not submit to Scientific Reports again.
Motivation:
The editor ignored the external review process and rejected the paper after more than 2 years.
Motivation:
I received the following comments from the editor-in-chief: "The topic and the methods are by now relatively standard, so that the innovative part is not up to the expected level.
While the paper deserves to be published, I would say, the proper forum is some journal devoted to mathematical physics."
While the paper deserves to be published, I would say, the proper forum is some journal devoted to mathematical physics."
Motivation:
reviewers argued that pper was not theoretical enough for this journal - this is more of an editorial decision in my opinion. reviews were very short and superficial, no real effort from 2 reviewers to give constructive criticism, editor could have offered a revise to sharpen the theoretcial contribution
Motivation:
Very competitive journal, but relatively fast process with grounded reviews
Motivation:
Fast rejection time, particularly since the manuscript was sent just before Christmas. Editor comments were not extremely helpful, but at least it seemed that they had looked into the manuscript.
Motivation:
I feel that the handling of the manuscripts is subject to publication bias.
The manuscripts are not reviewed properly, they reject based on the claim that some info is not present while it is present (very clearly presented in material and methods section, 1st paragraph, not easy to miss!!!).
The manuscripts are not reviewed properly, they reject based on the claim that some info is not present while it is present (very clearly presented in material and methods section, 1st paragraph, not easy to miss!!!).
Motivation:
Overall duration of the process unacceptable. Quality of the process highly debatable.
One reviewer asked to perform a totally different experiment, of a duration of two or three years (this was literally written!).
If the handling editor would share this view, should reject immediately and not let us waste additional five months for a resubmission, second round of revision and final rejection.
Both the behavior of one of the two reviewer and of the handling editor being inadequate, from the point of view of all the coauthors.
One reviewer asked to perform a totally different experiment, of a duration of two or three years (this was literally written!).
If the handling editor would share this view, should reject immediately and not let us waste additional five months for a resubmission, second round of revision and final rejection.
Both the behavior of one of the two reviewer and of the handling editor being inadequate, from the point of view of all the coauthors.
Motivation:
This journal has high standards for the quality of the paper. The remarks from the reviewers were relevant. Thanks to their constructive remarks, there was an big improvement of the manuscript. To my experience, I recommend totally this journal and hope they will maintain their standards.
Motivation:
I had a positive review experience with IEEE sensors journal in 2014.
However, in 2018, the review quality of this journal has drastically gone down.
The reviewers did not provide any valuable input on the scientific quality of the manuscript.
Instead their reviews were mostly on the lines of: "I do not think this will work"
This is a dangerous precedent being set these days. Science has to be backed by evidence and not by "personal-opinion".
The editorial board is equally responsible for their lousy attitude.
Both the reviewers had diametrically opposite views.
The reviewer 1 was extremely rude. My opinion about this journal has considerably changed. As a researcher, the first and the foremost important thing is proof of concept. The reviewers and editors have forgotten this.
However, in 2018, the review quality of this journal has drastically gone down.
The reviewers did not provide any valuable input on the scientific quality of the manuscript.
Instead their reviews were mostly on the lines of: "I do not think this will work"
This is a dangerous precedent being set these days. Science has to be backed by evidence and not by "personal-opinion".
The editorial board is equally responsible for their lousy attitude.
Both the reviewers had diametrically opposite views.
The reviewer 1 was extremely rude. My opinion about this journal has considerably changed. As a researcher, the first and the foremost important thing is proof of concept. The reviewers and editors have forgotten this.
Motivation:
The final round of reviews took several weeks, and I had to contact the editor regarding the amount of time. I was told that he/she was unable to reach the reviewers, possibly because of strikes happening in the UK at the time. Aside from the long time it took to receive reviews I was pleased with the comments I received and the treatment of my paper.
Motivation:
Communication was extremely poor. After numerous emails approximately 5 months after submission, the journal finally responded to say they were looking for a second reviewer. The editor was very unresponsive, and did not offer the authors the option of suggesting further reviewers.
Motivation:
The review process is too long compared to other journals.
Reviewers accept the paper (with various remarks), but the Editor decided to reject it.
Reviewers accept the paper (with various remarks), but the Editor decided to reject it.
Motivation:
1st decision was quite late and only after I asked about it. We were asked to make only few changes, the first review was very positive. Nevertheless, the 2nd decision took again quite long and was received only after I asked about it. Surprisingly, three new reviewers had got our article. Again, all reviews were very positive. Summary: Much too long time for only few changes asked.
Motivation:
My second experience with JNB, and both times my impression was that this journal is a bit "soft", in the sense that all remotely technical language is discouraged, and the journal seems to lean mostly towards social psychology. In this case the comments made by the editor and one reviewer revealed a complete lack of understanding of the subject (acoustic communication), so I decided against revising and resubmitting.
Motivation:
The reviewers were fair.
The Journal was quick in all procedures.
The Journal was quick in all procedures.
Motivation:
The review process of Energies is very fast. However, the first round of reviews was not of a high quality, even if they found my paper very interesting. After the second round, I received another review report, which this time make to improve the quality of the paper.
Motivation:
The editorial decision to reject the paper felt unfair regarding the reviewers comments, however the reviewing process was extremely fast. They offered to transfer the paper to another journal or to execute the revisions anyway, however we switched to another journal after that.
Motivation:
"we do not feel that the paper contains sufficient new or novel information to assign a high enough priority score in this area"
Motivation:
One reviewer very positive, the other thought wasn't interesting enough. Member editor agreed with latter, and also seemed to incorrectly think similar work had been done. I pointed this out to editor, but got a canned response that PNAS can't provide additional feedback.
3.0 weeks
3.4 weeks
n/a
9 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
This journal goes for short, preliminary reviews before going for a full one. This preliminary reviewing process is fast and that's good. IMO the journal seems to be biased against some areas. The journal officially boasts to be of certain standard which is very much doubtful.